One argument in favor of John's proposal is that:
let mut foo = 1,
bar = 2;
somewhat deceptively declares bar as mutable. However, a lint pass for
never-mutated mutable variables (which we'd want anyway) would catch this.
It's still a rather convenient form, though.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Benjamin Striegel <[email protected]>wrote:
> I use it frequently enough for conciseness. I'm having a hard time
> thinking of a language that *doesn't* support a construction. Does it cause
> a problem with formalizing the grammar?
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM, John Clements
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> I've recently become aware of the existence of a comma-separated
>> local-variable declaration in Rust. Would people object strongly to the
>> removal of this form?
>>
>> John
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rust-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
